Many will baulk at the idea of cab drivers charging higher rates as public transport networks suffer in the wake of today's storm - and indeed in many cases rates rules prohibit them from doing so. This does not appear to be stopping all enterprising drivers:
Supply vs demand. Colleague just been quoted £130 for 30 mile taxi ride. Compares to £35 for 15 miles I had a few hours ago. Seller's market— Mike van Dulken (@Accendo_Mike) October 28, 2013
But if this does profiteering does disturb you, can you suggest a better way for a scarce resource (travel to work) to be rationed in the wake of a natural disaster?
There are reasons to suggest that rate flexibility and liberalising supply rules are the best way to tackle the shortage.
If taxis were cheaper, there'd be none left
Higher prices will reduce demand for taxis, meaning that we don't see queues for them. Instead of rationing goods by the principle of "first come, first served", goods are distributed to those who want them more (and as such will be willing to pay more).
So taxis go to where they are more needed - rather than those who ask for them first.
Higher prices will mean more entrants to the market
As prices go up, we should see more people offer to take commuters to work with their vehicles. Supply should rise, and that allows prices to fall back down to a lower level.
But as with rules that stop taxi drivers charging higher rates, rules that prohibit others from offering their services as taxi drivers stop this mechanism working.
For those who want to read more on the subject, see Matt Zwolinski's paper "The Ethics of Price Gouging".